Master's Thesis Mc De Graaff Communication Studies University Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Master’s thesis Communication studies University of Twente, the Netherlands Dissertation January 24, 2008 Trust, in the Mission Area. Miriam C. de Graaff Supervision: Dr. P.W. de Vries (University of Twente) Prof.dr. E.R. Seydel (University of Twente) Dr. F.J. Kramer (Netherlands Defence Academy) Prof.dr. A.L.W. Vogelaar (Netherlands Defence Academy) 2 Management Summary This study focuses on the trust relationship, between the force protection team of the Battle Group and the mission team of the Provincial Reconstruction Team, within a Smallest Unit of Action (SUA). Soldiers from both units sent to Uruzgan (Afghanistan) in Task Force Uruzgan 1 and Task Force Uruzgan 2 were asked to participate. For this study, interviews were conducted and a short survey was sent to members of the two units to be filled out. The interview sessions were semi-structured by an interview protocol and the questions asked in the survey were based on a theoretical framework. This theoretical framework had provided several research themes that are important in trust relationships in an organizational context. The themes to the main theme trust were: cooperation, group dynamics, and the context (in this study called ‘the mission area’). The units within the SUAs were positive about trust and cooperation, especially between units that were familiar with each other and left together for patrols. Trust and cooperation between elements of units that stayed on camp during the entire mission and those leaving camp was evaluated more negative. After the units had spent more time together in the mission area the feeling of belonging to the SUA and the other unit’s team grew, but a team spirit was hard to create because the units were not really familiar with the other unit. This had for example to do with the fact that the teams in the SUAs were not coupled. The way the units perceive the mission area is passable similar: they both perceive the situation as dangerous and the people as not trustworthy. Members of the PRT are more positive though about cooperation with the Afghan domestic population than the Battle Group, which as a group is more kinetic and aggressive than the PRT. 3 Acknowledgements About two years ago I had my first experience with the Royal Netherlands Armed Forces. Unsure about what I was going to be confronted with I joined the senior class of the Royal Netherlands Defence Academy (NLDA) where young officers-to-be got their education. Being the only girl in my class and the only civilian, I suppose nobody really expected me to stay. But I liked it a lot and got completely embedded in this group of people from which some would turn out to become my closest friends. I was very pleased when one of my former teachers asked me to become part of his research team at the NLDA about a year ago. Then I had to decide what my object of study would be. After some discussions with my friends from the NLDA the Provincial Reconstruction Team and situation in Uruzgan caught my eye. I was lucky to find my supervisors just as excited about the topic like myself, so the study could start. During this past half year I have met many people who were a source of inspiration to me. I heard many stories that were shocking and many that were enchanting. I saw the longing in the eyes of ‘my guys’ to really make a difference in the world and saw the struggle they had to go through to reach this goal. I am very grateful that I had this life-time experience. I want to thank my supervisors of my University who were willing to ‘think-out-of-the-box’ and let me do things my own way. Thank you Doctor De Vries for giving me advice and for reviewing my paper many times. I also want to thank Professor Seydel who, as my second supervisor, gave me the opportunity to use an ‘odd’ research method: qualitative analysis of interviews was not commonly used at the University of Twente. My dedications go to my supervisors of the NLDA as well, of which the earlier mentioned former teacher of mine Doctor Kramer made sure I had all the opportunities to get where I wanted. He reviewed and commented my paper many times and took part in some of the interview sessions. My second supervisor of the NLDA Professor Vogelaar helped me with getting in touch with the right people in the right way. My supervisors helped me to get to this point, but they weren’t the only ones responsible. Mum and dad, thank you for supporting me in making my own decisions, and for standing by in my education. Marc thank you for letting me use some of your academic sources and thanks for your help in formulating my own research topic. Manon and Sanne, I want to thank 4 you for reviewing my thesis, this was very helpful. Richard, thank you for your critical point of view, for all the discussions we have had, and all the days we spent together on the Seeligh. Aziz, Gordon, Patrick and all my other friends from the Seeligh, Vera (my roommate), Sytze and Erik, (my buddies), Jelle and Ronald (my office buddies), Emilie, Annabel and all my other university friends, I want to thank you for your friendship, the phone calls, the visits, the support and all our conversations. My special thanks to all those people, my dear respondents, who were willing to share their experiences with me in interviews and in their answers to the survey questions. Thank you for your trust in me! Finally I want to thank Private Van Driel for sharing his pictures with me and giving me permission to use them in this paper. Thank you all! Miriam Carla de Graaff Breda, December 31 2007 5 Content Management Summary....................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 4 Content................................................................................................................................................ 6 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Trust between military units ................................................................................................... 9 1.1.1 Relevance of this study ................................................................................................. 9 1.1.2 Goal of this study......................................................................................................... 10 1.2 Analytical framework & expectations ................................................................................... 11 2 Task Force Uruzgan ..................................................................................................................... 14 2.1 Afghanistan, background ..................................................................................................... 14 2.2 The ISAF-mission in Uruzgan .............................................................................................. 15 2.3 Smallest Unit of Action ......................................................................................................... 17 2.4 The Provincial Reconstruction Team ................................................................................... 18 2.4.1 Reconstruction............................................................................................................. 20 2.5 The Battle Group.................................................................................................................. 21 3 Trust.............................................................................................................................................. 23 3.1 Types of trust ....................................................................................................................... 24 3.2 Foundations of trust ............................................................................................................. 25 3.2.1 Group membership and social categorization............................................................. 25 3.2.2 Stereotyping ................................................................................................................ 26 3.3 Antecedents of trust ............................................................................................................. 28 3.4 Trust in the mission area...................................................................................................... 29 4 Method .......................................................................................................................................... 31 4.1 Design – Case Study Uruzgan............................................................................................. 31 4.2 Data collection............................................................................................................................. 32 4.2.1 Respondents ............................................................................................................... 32 4.2.2 Procedure .................................................................................................................... 32 4.2.2.1 Operationalization of the short survey......................................................................... 33 4.3 Data analysis........................................................................................................................ 34 4.4 Validity and reliability...........................................................................................................